SUNIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mahila Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions case No. 37/2005 by which the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: u/S. 363 IPC : 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s. 366 IPC : 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- u/S. 376(2) r/w 511 IPC : 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment for each offence. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts for the disposal of the present appeal in brief are that PW.5 Geeta submitted a written report Ex. P. 6 in Police Station Kotputli district Jaipur with the allegation that on 15.2.2005 at about 3.00 p.m. while she along with her daughter aged 5 years went to the house of Rohitash Singh and while she was in the house her daughter came out of the house and was playing with the children, at that time accused came there and took away the girl with him in a field where she was laid on the Earth and while the accused was trying to commit rape with the girl, she cried On hearing her cry, Hanuman and Mohan Singh reached there. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape himself but was caught at the spot. On the oasis of report, FIR No. 82/2005 under sections 363, 366, 354, 376(2) read with section 511 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The girl was medically examined. The statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Ultimately, the matter came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, Mahila Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 363, 366, 354, 376 (2) r/w 511 IPC were framed by the trial Court on 7.7.2005. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In all nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case and several documents were tendered in evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which accused denied the allegation and stated that on account of election enmity with Rohitash, under his influence, a false FIR has been lodged by Smt. Geeta. The learned trial Court after hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as stated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record.